Open Stack

On Tue, May 8, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Clark Boylan wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Last week we got all three of the promised potential future config 
> management system specs pushed to Gerrit.
> 
> They can be found here:
>     * https://review.openstack.org/449933 Puppet 4 Infra
>     * https://review.openstack.org/469983 Ansible Infra
>     * https://review.openstack.org/565550 Containerized Infra
> 
> A good chunk of us appear to have reviewed them at this point. During 
> today's Infra meeting I asked for some initial thoughts and the 
> direction people thought they saw us going in.
> 
> The general mood seems to be using a system that decouples applications 
> from their host platforms (containers as packaging essentially) and 
> config management to build the base platform(s) that doesn't require 
> every server have specific versions of specific tools (Ansible) would be 
> a helpful long term goal. That said any transition will take time and 
> the puppet upgrade is long over due.
> 
> With all of this considered the rough plan that I propose is: "life 
> support puppet4 short/medium term, transition to ansible base + 
> container application "packaging" longer term, eventually having zuul do 
> deployments (but this last bit should be its own spec and is out of 
> scope of current effort)".
> 
> I think this gives us a good short term option that should be doable 
> (upgrade puppetry to puppet 4). Then we can transition in the goodness 
> of not tightly coupling our config management tooling and applications 
> themselves to the platforms we run. Monty has volunteered to do the 
> combining of the specs to reflect what this more concrete plan would 
> look like.
> 
> I know not everyone can attend the meetings so wanted to make sure 
> everyone saw this and hence this thread. Please provide feedback if you 
> feel strongly about this plan (think it is terrible or think it is 
> great, info is useful in both cases).

Monty has put together a spec for this at https://review.openstack.org/565550. A couple of us have reviewed it and I think it is really close to being ready. In this week's meeting I suggested that we target the week of July 17 for approving this if we can get reviewers to look it over and help refine it futher (as necessary).

Then we get almost two months to work on initial tasks before meeting at the PTG to focus on the bits we've found could use face to face time.

All that to say please review this spec. I'm hopeful we can approve it with a reasonable amount of consensus the week of July 17.

Thank you,
Clark